It is interesting that only seven churches are mentioned, and only these in the province of Asia. There were certainly more churches even in that province than the one’s mentioned in Revelation 1:11. Therefore, we need to ask, why did the Lord pick out these seven churches, and why only from the Roman province of Asia? First of all, it may prove significant that the seven churches seem to be situated in an ancient Roman mail route to various distribution centers. Beginning in Ephesus, the capital of Asia, the mail would have traveled north to the other distribution centers: Smyrna and Pergamum, then southeast to Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. So, communications would begin in Ephesus and go inland to the other cities (churches), and, considering the direction (inland) of the communication, it might be inferred that important news would spread until the whole province (taken for the world) would be reached.
Secondly, we need to keep in mind that the Apocalypse is a book written to Jews, in particular, and Jesus specifically sent his Apostles to Jews (Matthew 10:5; cf. Galatians 2:9) Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles, but the General Epistles (James, 1 & 2 Peter; 1, 2 & 3 John; Jude) plus the Book of Revelation were specifically sent to Jews and would contain Jewish perspectives, rather than those of the gentiles. This is why we have references to Old Testament figures like Balaam and Jezebel (Revelation 2:14, 20) contained in the messages to two of the seven churches mentioned by name. It was expected that John’s readers would recognize these figures and understand why they were mentioned, as it pertained to the context of what Jesus wanted to say to them.
Therefore, the Apocalypse had to have been written when issues like “eating things sacrificed to idols” were both controversial and a present danger, and this would certainly be true only before 70 AD and particularly in the Diaspora. Such things were not very controversial issues in Judea or Galilee where the Torah was the law of the land for every Jew, and where pagan temples were not built or sacrifices made to pagan gods. Nor would they have been controversial issues in the latter part of the 1st century or during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, because the believing gentile communities had become the majority of those who had received Jesus as Savior. With Judaism dispersed and believing Jews unwelcome in the synagogues, the number of Jews becoming believers in Jesus as their Messiah had reduced to a trickle. The believing community was then being largely populated through conversion of the gentile populace, and “eating things sacrificed to idols” as an unclean thing was a moot issue.[1]
We also need to understand that most of the Jews of the northern and southern Kingdoms of Israel never returned from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. They migrated elsewhere, which, no doubt, included the Roman province of Asia. Not only so, but Antiochus the Great removed about 2000 Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylon to Asia Minor,[2] showing that there was a large and growing Jewish community there. Therefore, this area would have been of particular interest in the ministry of the original twelve Apostles.
Finally, the province of Asia and other provinces in Asia Minor seem to have been a hub for ancient Christianity. There are more Christian churches mentioned in the New Testament from this area than any other region in the ancient world. Besides Paul’s three letters to this region, both James and Peter wrote their letters to Jewish believers living in Asia and Asia Minor. So the reason Asia was chosen was probably due to the large Jewish population concentrated there, and the reason only these seven churches were chosen above the other churches there is probably due to their being united by an ancient Roman mail distribution system. These combined reasons make them a fitting symbol of the whole church (the seven churches together) bringing the Gospel to the world (cp. Matthew 28:19-20), represented in the province of Asia.
_______________________________________________
[1] If the seven churches and the Apocalypse are taken out of this context, then the reason why the province of Asia and these particular seven churches were chosen by Jesus to address would have to remain a mystery, and opinions as to why these particular churches were chosen would be purely subjective, having nothing objective one could point to as evidence to support such opinions.
[2] Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews 12.3.4.
Smoodock's Blog 
8 responses to “Why These Seven Churches?”
Hi Eddie,
Are you interested in a piece of archaeological evidence that might provide some additional proof of the point you’re trying to make? Ever hear of the Siebenberg house museum in the Old City of Jerusalem? This Jewish couple purchased a site in the 1970’s and built a home on the property in Jerusalem. Later, when various archaeological teams began to discover items in the area surrounding their property, they decided to ask permission to excavate the ground underneath their house. During 18 years or more of digging down some 60 feet or so, they uncovered artifacts from time periods going back to Solomon’s and David’s time.
In the rock strata of the 2nd Temple period, they found an ash layer that came from the AD 70 conflagration in Jerusalem. From this same layer, they recovered a stone capital that had once been on the top of a pillar. On this capital, there were 7 decorative menorahs chiseled into the stone. Interesting.
If 7 lamps, (or 7 menorahs), were a common Jewish motif for decoration during that period, why wouldn’t John have used that same symbolic motif and incorporated it into his apocalyptic message? The theme of the “7 lamps” (or 7 menorahs) carved into the capital that were originally meant to symbolize the Temple menorah in the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem, John may have adopted and used that same theme to portray the “7 lamps” or candlesticks of the NEW JERUSALEM temple – the church of Christ (Rev. 1:20). Does that sound plausible?
At any rate, if you haven’t heard or read about this house museum in the Old City of Jerusalem, you might want to take a look at this article in the Biblical Archaeological Review:
siebenberghouse.com
It’s an interesting read in and of itself, regardless of whether you think it has any connection to the “7 candlesticks” and the 7 churches of Revelation.
Greetings, Patricia, and thank you for this information. However, are you certain you have the correct study. I don’t mention anything about lamps, candlesticks, lampstands, candelabras or menorah’s in the above study. I do have an upcoming study in which I mention the lampstand of the Temple and seven candelabras representing the churches. I’ll make a referral to the Siebenberg House in a footnote in it. But, that doesn’t help me understand why you mentioned this in the first place.
Seems plausible. But I suppose your assertion that avoiding foods sacrificed to idols would be moot after the church became mostly Gentile, would depend on how long the Gentile believers followed the only law given them by the Apostles in Acts 15:19-20.
Still the choice of only churches in Asia Minor does support an early date for the writing of Revelation and the definitely Jewish cultural references in the message to the churches does support your view.
Greetings, Shari, and thank you for your reply. Lord bless you.
The time of the great conflicts between Jewish believers and Jews who had rejected Jesus as their Messiah was certainly before the Jew’s war with Rome. Most scholars put the writing of the Apocalypse near or just after the turn of the century. But, this isn’t plausible from the standpoint of the rebuke of “eating things sacrificed to idols.” Think about it. The Temple was destroyed, so believing Jews would no longer make any pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and with no priesthood, there would no longer be an emphasis upon the Law and all that this encompassed in the Jew’s manner of life. Even unbelieving Jews had to have a meeting after that war to redefine what it meant to be a Jew in the post-Temple world. (see the Council of Jamnia).
After that meeting, Messianic Jews were completely outlawed as far as fellowship was concerned in any form. Add to this the fact that 30 years of separation between the Temple and the end of the century, and you have a new generation of Messianic Jews growing up who have no context of following the Law or embracing their Jewish heritage through annual pilgrimages (or a reasonable facsimile) to Jerusalem. There would have been more and more marriages between Messianic Jews and gentiles, making the Apostolic directives moot entirely, and I could go on, but you can see the point. The earlier we can place the writing of the Apocalypse the better sense there is for some of the sayings we find in it.
Hm. Though I don’t disagree with your belief in the early date for the writings of ALL of the New Testament, I don’t think the foods sacrificed to Idols argument is a very strong one, at least not a conclusive one. No doubt Jews questioned what it meant to be a Jew without a Temple, but this wasn’t the first time they were in exile without a temple, unable to fulfill the Law with it’s sacrificial system. What do we find Daniel doing in exile in Babylon when he is in Nebuchadnezzar’s court and told to eat from the King’s table? He bargains with his leader to be allowed to eat only vegetables. Why? Because the king’s delicacies were likely sacrificed to idols. So I don’t see the loss of the Temple as a reason that Jews, believing or not, would stop worrying about foods sacrificed to idols, if anything it might be a law they would cling to, as one law they were still able to follow without a Temple and as they were forced to live in exile in pagan nations. How long believing gentiles followed the directive given by the Apostles is debatable. But as you said, culturally, the churches of Revelations were still mostly Jewish, as evidenced by the many references to Jewish history and culture rather than Greek. So if Daniel thought it was important after the loss of the Temple in his era to hold to certain purity laws, it is reasonable to think Jews (believers in Jesus or not) would still have held on to at least that law for quite some time after 70 BCE. Do you get my point?
So yes, other historical & cultural references written in the letters to the churches point to mostly Jewish believers in the churches. But I’m not convinced that avoiding foods sacrificed to idols would have been moot to a Jewish believer after the loss of the Temple. And we could argue that the comparison of gentiles of the Old Testament (Balaam & Balak enticing God’s people to sin by eating foods offered to idols Rev. 2:14-15) with the Nicolaitans’ teaching in the Pergamum church is evidence that these unknown Nicolaitans could be a gentile movement enticing believers to again ignore these same Jewish laws. If so, then this could be used to argue for a later date when pagan perspectives were influencing the church.